Two former Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees have filed a lawsuit against the retailer, alleging thousands of pregnant workers were denied the same accommodations as those with disabilities.
The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in Illinois last week by Talisa Borders and Otisha Woolbright, who claimed they were treated as "second-class citizens" as pregnant employees at Wal-Mart. They said in the complaint that their requests to avoid climbing ladders or doing heavy lifting were denied under a companywide policy that was in place until 2014.
The two former employees want to represent a class that could include more than 20,000 women who were subject to the company's pregnancy policies and practices between March 19, 2013, and a policy change around March 2014, according to the complaint. The complaint said Wal-Mart was in violation of federal law requiring employers to regard pregnancy as a temporary disability and provide work accommodations to pregnant women.
"Wal-Mart accommodated a large percentage of non-pregnant employees with physical limitations but failed to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant employees with physical limitations arising out of pregnancy," the lawsuit said.
Woolbright, who worked in the deli at a Wal-Mart in Florida, said she was instructed by her doctor to avoid heavy lifting after being told in September 2013 that she was at a high risk of miscarriage.
But Woolbright's assistant store manager told her pregnancy was "no excuse" to get out of tasks, according to the complaint. She later injured herself lifting trays that weighed 35 and 50 pounds, causing her to miss several days of work. Woolbright was offered accommodations to do tasks that did not require heavy lifting after returning, but she alleged she was fired three days later after asking about the company's policies on taking leave for childbirth.
Borders, who worked at a pharmacy in Illinois, was told she needed to provide a note from a doctor after having co-workers assist her with tasks like climbing ladders.
She provided the note, but the request was denied. Borders was required to take an unpaid leave of absence and claimed she was paid $2 less per hour after returning to work.
"Had Walmart allowed other employees to assist Ms. Borders and Ms. Woolbright with their 'non-essential job functions,' such as climbing ladders or lifting heavy objects, or had Walmart reassigned Ms. Borders and Ms. Woolbright to open vacant positions, they would not have been harmed as they were," according to the lawsuit, which asks for unspecified monetary relief for the workers.
Wal-Mart changed its accommodations policy in 2014 to include "a temporary disability caused by pregnancy," according to the lawsuit.
Wal-Mart denies the claims and plans to "defend the company," according to spokesman Randy Hargrove. He said Wal-Mart "is a great place for women to work" and disagrees that the claims raised are entitled to class treatment.
"Our policies have always fully met or exceeded both state and federal law, and this includes the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act," Hargrove said. "We've also had a strong anti-discrimination policy, which provides more protection than required by the law. That policy has long listed pregnancy as a protected status."
Wal-Mart isn't the first large company to face a lawsuit regarding accommodations for pregnant workers. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a pregnant United Parcel Service employee who was placed on unpaid leave.
"Certainly the court's decision is something that we celebrated, and yet, far too many women are still faced with these very difficult workplace challenges that compromise their health and/or their economic security," said Vicki Shabo, vice president of the the National Partnership for Women & Families.
A 2014 study conducted by the nonprofit estimated that a quarter of a million pregnant women are denied reasonable accommodations every year.
Julia Parish, a staff attorney at California-based Legal Aid at Work, said pregnant women are entitled to accommodations, and the case against Wal-Mart could help highlight the issue.
"I think this case is unique and has the potential to make a broad impact and hopefully ensure that more pregnant women have access to, really, basic rights at work," Parish said.
Business on 05/17/2017